So here’s how a healthy debate progresses. First, you hammer the opponents face with your fists until your knuckles hurt. Switch to insults, and verbal violence. Focus on attacking the opponent’s appearance, gender ethnicity and do on.
Eventually, you can actually start approaching the main topic, but do that gradually. Begin with addressing the tone first. Next, you can just state the opposite of the main argument, but skip all logical reasoning and evidence.
that pyramid makes it look like debate is build on a foundation of violence
A point to raise with Paul Graham (or whoever first depicted it as a “pyramid” graphic), for his appearing like debate is built on a foundation of name-calling.
that pyramid makes it look like debate is build on a foundation of violence
Maslow’s Hierarchy of arguing. You can’t refute the central point unless you have a stable source of violence.
So here’s how a healthy debate progresses. First, you hammer the opponents face with your fists until your knuckles hurt. Switch to insults, and verbal violence. Focus on attacking the opponent’s appearance, gender ethnicity and do on.
Eventually, you can actually start approaching the main topic, but do that gradually. Begin with addressing the tone first. Next, you can just state the opposite of the main argument, but skip all logical reasoning and evidence.
And so on….
Accurate. Before talking, monke solved disagreement with personal touch.
All law and civility is based on violence.
It’s the basis for human societies.
A point to raise with Paul Graham (or whoever first depicted it as a “pyramid” graphic), for his appearing like debate is built on a foundation of name-calling.
Who doesn’t like to start debates with a little fisty cuffs to warm-up?